Friday, 19 November 2010

Well, This Is Going To Get Awkward...

...the next time the police rock up to a messy domestic and the wife is standing there, bleeding from a cut head and with a huge shiner, and the husband blusters that she did it herself by 'walking into a heavy door'...

18 comments:

Lynne
said...

Pamela Somerville had injuries to her left eye and temple. On viewing the footage of her being thrown into the cell by Andrews you can see the open door to the cell (it opens outwards) and you can see Andrews clearly on the LEFT HAND side of Ms Somerville. How the fuck did she smack into the door frame with a honking big copper in the way?

And how come there seems to be no mention of the fact that while in the custody area, Andrews is clearly seen striking Ms Andrews on the left hand side of her head/face?

Justice ain't merely blind it has it's head wedged firmly up its arse. Or Judge "Roy" Bean has...

Only a cretin believes that our judicial system is without fault and should never, ever be questioned. After all, there has never been one single miscarriage of justice in the history of jurisprudence nor has there ever been an Appeal Court decision that wasn't the right one. So be a good little sheep and try not to notice the glaring evidence that the woman was injured when she was thrown roughly into the cell, not before. The fact the video has been edited for highlights doesn't alter anything but says a lot of you take the time to examine the details.

I think Gadget has lost the plot. Which is a shame, because if you read some of his earlier postings they give a really good insight into the difficult work the police perform. I would recommend “A Dead Mum” on page 16 of his book – not just a moving story but also an impressive statement of intent:

“THE main reason I wrote this book is because I am worried about the gulf that has opened up between us and our core supporters – law-abiding, tax-paying folks living ordinary lives – and I’d like to try to bring us closer together again. This is important, because we police with consent and without the support of the majority we are lost.”

Laudable, but a long way from where we are presently – with Gadget routinely disparaging members of the public and fitting-up contributors by editing their postings. He is apparently of at least Inspector rank – shouldn’t he be setting some sort of example rather than playing to the disgruntled officer gallery? Does he care what damage this is doing to our perception of the police?

Gadget, take a holiday, come back and give us more of the thoughtful informative persusive stuff. Please."

why is it that we view and treat suspected violent attacks on property or the person where the alleged victim and accused are known to each other any different from those cases where they are not known to each other. In other crimes while these relationships often lead investigators to evidence that supports or contradicts the allegation we see no difference in the murder of a woman or man by another simply because they were known to each other or not. It has no bearing on the definition of the crime or appropriate sentencing so why in domestic violence?This separation in treatment while investigating and prosecution is also apparent when considering male on male, male on female, female on male and female on female crimes where violence is involved, again why? If I come around after a blow to my head it is initially of little concern whether a man or a woman delivered the blow or if the person who did it knew me, and I do have personal experience coming round having tried to prevent an ex wife driving our car while under the influence, sitting on the drive perhaps made me an obvious target and yes while I was concerned for the car that I had paid for her well being and that of the public did cross my mind before it met the outside of the car with some force.